micronationswikiaorg-20200223-history
Talk:List of time periods (New Europe)
I would like all community memberss to add what they can to these "era's" in our communities timeline. I have created I think a good list of general periods of time. Now you all must add what significant events occurred in your countries during these eras. To help you understand one thing. Pre-Microwiki refers to a micronation of anykind that existed prior to 2005, which is when the wiki was created. Early-wiki era is from 2005 - January 2009. If you catagorize a micronation that no longer exists or is inactive (make sure before you say it is) place it in the era it was at its most powerful, for example the USMR was most powerful during the Crusading period. The Red Epoch is from August - November 2009. We are in what I call the Declining Age, December 2009 - present. Add what you think is most usful information to place in the article, and feel free to create the articles. I would very much like Federal Republic of St.Charlie to help with this as catagorizing and interpreting these events seems to be their thing. If you have any questions please ask them here. Thank you and I hope this will make things in our shared history easier to access.--New Euro Emperor 06:27, December 30, 2009 (UTC) Discussion of Lists My argument: # There is NO problem whatsoever with long pages. Morons which live behind the moon and have a dial up connection might have problems, but then why don't we just delete half the content from each relatively long page on microwiki. # We can note that the New European definition is the most widely accepted one. # What's wrong with disagreeing people adding their definitions? If there is another definition, it HAS to be posted on MW, because MW is supposed to be comprehensive, right? Well, then all existing definitions need to be put into the article. # Why exactly should New Europe's definition be the leading or most important one? They created the article, fine. So? I mean, that's like saying "Okay, I created the article 2010, so I'm only allowing content regarding my micronation or content that fits my point of view in this article." It's unfair, and, sorry outright stupid. --Citizen123 13:02, January 9, 2010 (UTC) You know what I'll just redirect it, it's probably the fairest solution.--Citizen123 13:09, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Re: Maybe you didn't get what I mean: *There is a problem in long pages. Long pages become confusing because a lot of stuff (maybe even useless) is added to it sometimes without a justification. I've been analizing hundreds of articles in the last months and I know what it means. *The New European definition is the most accepted one because it's not only about New Europe. Time periods cannot be about only one or two micronation, but have to focus on the whole community. This is why I also rollbacked the Pristinian and Midget one (which by the way, redirects only to the main page, so is horribly useless, contrary to the Pristinian one, I'll check it). For this kind of stuff, you create a nice and fancy "History" section on your main article, and you descrive in words the history of your micronation. It takes less pages to make, and it makes your main article look bigger. *Other definitions are accepted as long as they are about several micronations. If they're not, it's only part of the history of one (repeating myself again). *The New European definitions are a WIP, if you didn't notice it, and it means that people are adding explanations and criticisms to it. I was actually making a draft yesterday night, but instead, I had the pleasure to delete 400 unused files because the past Admins didn't give a damn about it. Sorry for that. I'll check the redirects you made and see the ones that can be kept. I won't delete them. I will merge them with the main article. Thanks in advance for an eventual reply. --Cajak 13:44, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Re: Re I did indeed get what you mean, but I still contradict it: * No, there is not. We surely both recognise that Wikipedia is in many aspects the most efficient, useful and well-designed (in terms of organisation) wiki on the internet. In that effect, this is a list article. Look at list articles in Wikipedia. They are sometimes as long as 50 print pages. But due to their structure (with sections, subsections etc) there is still a good overview. This is basically what would happen here. That is, if there is correct nomenclature for the section headings, which people like you and me could easily ensure. If Wikipedia has no problems, we can orientate ourselves according to the way it is done there, and we'll neither have problems. * Ummm... ...nor is the Pristinian definition. If you have a look at it, it's external, meaning, concerning the entire MicroWiki community. We're also working on an internal one, but that could have just been extralocated to another article. Now that the external definition has been extralocated to its own article anyway, that isn't necessary, it can be added as a subsection there. And, okay, the Midget timeline was internal, but I didn't realize that. My apologies for that. * See above, the Pristinian definition is about the exact same amount of micronations as New Europe's, since it is about ALL micronations on MicroWiki, which you would know if you had actually read it and looked at the subpoints, which include the same subpoints as the New European definition, including the Meissner-Antifan war, which has about as much to do with Pristinia as camels have with chinese vases. * Ah, but when I adjusted the New European definition, it was reverted by New Europe which means that I for example apparently can't add to or take away from it. Thus, I had to make my own definition. Also, you needn't have actually deleted the unused files. Personally, I wouldn't have given a damn about them either, seeing as they don't disturb anyone and I don't have to pay for the webspace/bandwidth. Neither do you, so why should it interest you? Thank you, --Citizen123 16:35, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Re: Re: Re: A few bullet points: *The difference between MicroWiki and Wikipedia is, however, that while Wikipedia got exactly 1,707 administrators, we have five admins, and most importantly we do not work 12 hours a day. Also, unlike Wikipedia, we do not delete articles from their roots because they are wrongly formatted after the rules of the Wiki. If we did so, almost one third of the articles here would automatically get to death row. The structure, in this case, of time periods, would need a correct explanation, and not only a list of periods that link to a small article. *To be actually honest with you, I don't see how the existance of a "MicroWiki community time period" can be useful at all. I will actually discuss with admins about this idea, and we'll see what to do with it. *About the unused files: there is also another difference between MicroWiki and Wikipedia: while Wikipedia categorizes everything, MicroWiki never did, and doing it now would take months. This is why we must at least keep clean the section of unused files, so that it is easier to sort everything out. This is why "it interests me". --Cajak 18:55, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Re: Re: Re: Re * Yes, but contrary to Wikipedia also, no one expects every page to be at top quality 24/7. So if someone puts their definition and it is about as nicely formatted as the Sandbox when it's been vandalized, then readers will probably be understanding and wait another day or so for one of the decent users (and who says only admins are decent users who could do maintenance tasks like this) to improve on that... * Now why should the adminship decide about whether an article has the right to live or not? Of course they do when they decide whether or not to delete an article that was marked to be deleted. However, in this case, it is a theory developed by a user and even if the admins may think it isn't useful, there is no reason to delete it seeing the person who came up with it in the first place at least must've thought it is useful. And seeing that a vast majority of users seem to agree with that person in our case, deletion would be an annoyance to say the least ;) * Yes, but my friend and Comrade Mr. Meehan for example had a range of unused Nemkhavia files which he was going to use soon for an article about Nemkhavia's history. He hasn't got a copy of them on his computer any longer, so since your deletion run those files have been lost into the neverending oblivion of nothingness, preventing him from adding older images to the planned article and also losing some interesting tidbits, that were nice to look at, forever. --Citizen123 19:08, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ↑ (I'm actually having fun doing these titles) Now, back to the topic: *Hem.. no. Some of us actually expect pages to be comprehensible and with the highest quality possible. This place is not Wikipedia, but it's also not the Rednecks United Wiki. Another thing: maybe you did not notice it, but usually, not all articles receive the support of everyone, and a lot of articles remain "formatted as if they were being vandalized" for weeks, while the author makes other articles that "look vandalized". *The adminship decides whether an article has the right to live.. because it's the adminship. I personally cannot allow MicroWiki to become a pile of mud and sticks because someone doesn't know how to put their stuff in order. I do not, however, delete articles because I don't like them. I always try to merge them to the main article (as I did more than once) and find a solution. If they're really useless (like one obvious line of text that says nothing about the article itself) I delete them, yes. This is not the case, however, or I would have deleted this page, jumped on my chair and laughed hysterically. *My sincere apologies, though he should have at least categorized them. --Cajak 19:35, January 9, 2010 (UTC)